Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn if you look at the context of the study by E. Loftus which you quote, she gives examples of situations in which people don't have a clear memory of an event. They may have observed quickly, perhaps only one time, or the detail in question they didn't focus on. Also in the examples the alternative suggestions generally are ones which are potentially easily confusable with the true facts and tend to be relatively small details. In those cases when she took 1/2 of the subjects and exposed them to a suggested phony detail those exposed to the "phony detail TENDED to claim" they'd seen that ...while others who hadn't been exposed were more likely to be accurate on the true facts.

In the text I quoted, Loftus is talking about a recent event. It does not say that the people are not clear about what they have seen, only that they were questioned about it, with one group being asked questions that contained inaccurate information.

This is common sense, that I believe the majority of people can relate to through personal experience. It is much more difficult to succeed in confusing a subject on what they remember if they have a clear memory or have trust in their memory. And while E. Loftus studies focus on problems with memories that doesn't mean that memories are always fallible. Just because passage of time tends to diminish memory accuracy doesn't mean all memory with everyone is lost completely with passage of time. People generally can appreciate when they have a clear memory on a detail versus other times when they may not, or they can appreciate whether on average they have a good memory or not. And when there is consensus on key facts with a number of individuals as is the case with the Conneaut witnesses it becomes less likely that they all suffer from inaccurate memory of key details.

With the case of the Conneaut witnesses, we do not know what Hurlbut asked them. That is the kicker. We do not know if he poisoned the well. We do not know if they were initially clear about what they remembered. We only have the final statements and nothing in between.
We do have statements by other witnesses that did not give those clear details, such as the widow and daughter in their interviews, Josiah Spalding, and the Amity witnesses. Their statements described the Oberlin manuscript much better than that of a possible Book of Mormon precursor and did not contain any of the "by land and sea" phrases or the proper names. One would expect a closer agreement.

Glenn

[_marg]

In the text I quoted, Loftus is talking about a recent event. It does not say that the people are not clear about what they have seen, only that they were questioned about it, with one group being asked questions that contained inaccurate information.

Well if you look at the context of the examples used, they are all cases in which subjects are not likely to be certain of what they saw. That's not to say that some people might have focused in on the particular detail in question but generally they are examples in which the details are relatively small and easily confusable if an alternate detail is suggested. Having listened to some of her youtube talks she discusses this in terms of why some people are more susceptible than others to memory manipulation..such as people who are unsure of their memories tend to be susceptible to memory manipulation.

With the case of the Conneaut witnesses, we do not know what Hurlbut asked them. That is the kicker. We do not know if he poisoned the well. We do not know if they were initially clear about what they remembered. We only have the final statements and nothing in between.
We do have statements by other witnesses that did not give those clear details, such as the widow and daughter in their interviews, Josiah Spalding, and the Amity witnesses. Their statements described the Oberlin manuscript much better than that of a possible Book of Mormon precursor and did not contain any of the "by land and sea" phrases or the proper names. One would expect a closer agreement.

Well Glenn the witnesses are more likely to be influenced by the Book of Mormon which they had available to them and had in most cases read or perused it, than they would be manipulated by some 24 year old who was not in any way an authority figure to them and for whom they really offered the minimal amount of cooperation and effort into their statements.

And as mentioned previously to you, in the cases with Loftus which you cite, the sorts of things where the memory was manipulated were details easily confusable..such as color of car..red or blue, what sort of sign was on street - stop or yield sign, a building present or not in a scene viewed very briefly. And sure some people may have a clear memory but the study was set up that most people would likely not have a clear memory and hence the study would show under similar circumstances of the study memories of individuals are likely unreliable and more than that under similar circumstances memories are easily manipulated.

The situation with the Conneaut witnesses is not similar to those particular studies.

As far as Josiah goes..yes he was likely exposed to MSCC and not MF.

As far as Spalding's wife and daughter's statement's not sharing the same similarities to the 8 Conneaut witness statements ..I do have to review the daughter and wife's. However I think your main point or concern is that this indicated prompting by Hurlbut. I agree there was prompting by Hurlbut. But that is not evidence that the Conneaut witnesses' memories were false or manipulated of what they did state. And they didn't later claim they were pressured in any way or encouraged to lie, nor did they recount their statements, nor did anyone ever state later the Conneaut witnesses were untruthful.

What the similarities in Conneaut witness statements indicate to me is a 24 year old Hurlbut, inexperienced in this sort of thing, doing the best he could with witnesses who weren't going out of their way to help him and who put in minimal effort. There was no benefit to them to give their statements to this unknown individual.

[_Roger]

Dale wrote:

It doesn't quite match the Book of Mormon narrative -- so
the false memory (if that is what it is) doesn't seem very
useful to those trying to destroy the Church.

This is a key point I would like to see explained from Ben's perspective, and Glenn's perspective and Dan's perspective.

[_Dr. Shades]

The first is, quite simply, that the descriptions we get are all way too similar.

That's because they were talking about the same book.

The second is that the similarities are not restricted to elements from the Book of Mormon.

That is a false notion.

[_marg]

Post reference in thread
DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY:
here

Dan I’ll start from where you begin your discussion on false memory.

On the origin of identifying the names, McKinstry is a good example of how false memories can be (unintentionally) planted. Here she probably refers to questions being asked of her prior to her 1839 interview with Jesse Haven. When she was interviewed by Haven, she said:--

"Ans: I think some of the names agree.

Ques. Are you certain that some of the names agree?
Ans: I am not."

Then, in 1880, she told Dickenson:--

"They are as fresh to me to-day as though I heard them yesterday. They were Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi."

Dan if you look at the Jesse Haven interview which you posted in the post in question, Jesse Haven does not ask her if she ever read the Book of Mormon or even looked at it. Why is that if he wrote the interview verbatim and made a point to specifically ask her mother? He's aware it's an important question, but it's absent in his questions to Mckinstry.

Although you assume there is a contradiction between her 1880 statement and the one to J. Haven, there isn’t without that question of her knowledge of the Book of Mormon being verified.

When Haven asked her if some of the names in the Book of Mormon agreed with the Spalding manuscript of which she refers to as Manuscript Found, of course if she’s taken little or no interest in the Book of Mormon, and not even looked at it she wouldn’t know if the names in the Book of Mormon matched the names in Manuscript Found.

And yet you are using this as an example illustrating False memory theory likely being in play.

I will continue later with the rest of your post in which you argue using E. Loftus's research warrants false memory in S/R witnesses's statements.

[_Dan Vogel]

...

The Conneaut witnesses made their claims before Hurlbut interviewed them, largely because they heard Mormon missionaries reading or explaining the Book of Mormon in public gatherings. Hurlbut was sent there to investigate these claims.
...

From what I've studied, this is partly true. Claims were being
made in the adjacent counties of Ashtabula, Erie and Crawford
as early as 1832. Hurlbut was not sent to Ashtabula to check
on these claims, but rather, he served a Mormon mission in
Erie and Crawford counties, where he first learned of the claims

Hurlbut's first direct encounter with a "Conneaut witness" was
probably in "Jackson's Crossroads" -- but possibly also in
Springfield twp., Erie Co., in the spring of 1833. That year he
also served as a Mormon missionary in Crawford Co., where
John Spalding lived. Since John's statement was evidently the
first testimony taken by Hurlbut, it is possible that Hurlbut
began his "interviews" there in Crawford Co., PA in the spring
or summer of 1833.

A very late article in an Ohio newspaper claimed to document
John Spalding's testimony, written in the form of a letter, and
presumably sent to D.P.Hurlbut during the late summer of 1833.

If Hurlbut was "sent there to investigate" -- then it must have
been after he contracted with Kirtland area anti-Mormons, to
provide additional written testimony -- that is, more than just
those initial written statements from John and Martha Spalding.

Between the time that Hurlbut was taking down the testimony,
and the time Howe's book was published (late Nov., 1834)
there is little in the way of known sources regarding the witnesses
and their claims -- just a "press release" in the Palmyra paper,
a notice to the public in the Painesville newspaper, and some
local reporting of Hurlbut's pre-trial hearing and April trial.

Here is one source, not generally cited:

there are several persons in Salem, now Conneaut, who have seen it [the MS], and recollect distinctly the character of the fiction. They were intimate with Mr. Spalding, and used frequently to converse familiarly about his story, and to read it, or hear it [the MS] read to them. One man with whom I conversed, said he recollected the names of the characters and places, and that in general they remained the same in the Book of Mormon, as in the manuscript of Spalding. He feels not the least hesitation in testifying to this, and to the identity of the works so far as relates to the narrative, or historical part. Indeed the resemblance is so striking, that it was detected the first evening the Mormonites preached in that place, merely from the passages read in the Book during service. There is all the certainty on the subject, in the minds of those who have seen the manuscript, that could be felt in any case, unless the two books could be laid side by side and compared. One man especially, by the name of Miller, who worked for Mr. Spalding several weeks, perhaps months, states that the manuscript lay on a shelf in the room where he slept, and that he spent many of his leisure hours in reading it, so long as he worked at the house.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#061234

I have reviewed thousands of pages of 19th century newspaper files
and microfilmed historical sources relating to the Ashtabula/Erie Co.
border region, and have found nothing that would gainsay the
character or public reputations of the witnesses. Most of them were
cited, quoted or otherwise documented in the region's newspapers
for many years after Howe's book was published.

When I left off researching in Ohio, there remained additional hundreds
(if not thousands) of pages of early 19th century newspaper articles
and local area historical items to be studied in the Western Reserve
Historical Association's library in Cleveland. It is possible that some
additional information on the Conneaut witnesses could be derived
from those files.

Possibly a researcher could locate some source material not previously
uncovered, relating to the witnesses, their statements, Hurlbut, Howe,
etc., -- but my guess is that anything truly wonderful would have
been communicated elsewhere, and that library research will not give
us much more than we already have available for investigation.

UD

Dale,

Thanks for the corrective. I think my memory slipped on the chronology of Hurlbut’s activities. I therefore with draw my statement that he was “sent to investigate”. Yet, I think it’s important to note, as I said in my previous discussion:

Orson Hyde preached the Book of Mormon at Conneaut (OH). Nehemiah King, according to Aron Wright, left the meeting claiming Hyde had preached from the writings of Solomon Spalding (see 31 Dec. 1833 statement in Cowdery et al., 73). Thus, discussions about Spalding's writings and the Book of Mormon were circulating for a year before Hurlbut came, allowing one witness to contaminate another.

Also, I’m not trying to impugn the character of the Conneaut witnesses. I don’t think they were lying.

[_Dan Vogel]

Post reference in thread
DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY:
here

Dan I’ll start from where you begin your discussion on false memory.

On the origin of identifying the names, McKinstry is a good example of how false memories can be (unintentionally) planted. Here she probably refers to questions being asked of her prior to her 1839 interview with Jesse Haven. When she was interviewed by Haven, she said:--

"Ans: I think some of the names agree.

Ques. Are you certain that some of the names agree?
Ans: I am not."

Then, in 1880, she told Dickenson:--

"They are as fresh to me to-day as though I heard them yesterday. They were Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi."

Dan if you look at the Jesse Haven interview which you posted in the post in question, Jesse Haven does not ask her if she ever read the Book of Mormon or even looked at it. Why is that if he wrote the interview verbatim and made a point to specifically ask her mother? He's aware it's an important question, but it's absent in his questions to Mckinstry.

Although you assume there is a contradiction between her 1880 statement and the one to J. Haven, there isn’t without that question of her knowledge of the Book of Mormon being verified.

When Haven asked her if some of the names in the Book of Mormon agreed with the Spalding manuscript of which she refers to as Manuscript Found, of course if she’s taken little or no interest in the Book of Mormon, and not even looked at it she wouldn’t know if the names in the Book of Mormon matched the names in Manuscript Found.

And yet you are using this as an example illustrating False memory theory likely being in play.

I will continue later with the rest of your post in which you argue using E. Loftus's research warrants false memory in S/R witnesses's statements.

Marg,

I find it rather ironic that you seem to insist on a perfect fit, while Roger draws on personal experience with memory to support the Conneaut witnesses that is very different. Loftus showed that false memories can be planted through suggestion. It doesn’t have to be exactly replicated for the principle to apply. There’s a reason witnesses are interviewed separately, or be in the courtroom while another is testifying. It’s not because of the fear of collusion, but the fear of contamination of memory. Memory is malleable, especially with the passage of time. Loftus was one study about memory. But other studies on memory show that while people retain general meaning of their experiences, they are often wrong about particulars (e.g., R. C. Barclay). I think before you try to overturn the example I used, you should search the internet under “false memory”—I think you will be surprised by how much information there is on this.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Also, I’m not trying to impugn the character of the Conneaut witnesses. I don’t think they were lying.

Yeah -- the word "lying" doesn't match up very well with what I've
discovered about these folks. The only one of them that had even
the slightest taint on his reputation may have been Nahum Howard,
who may (or may not) have moved west to avoid some sort of legal
difficulties in New England.

On the other hand, I suppose it's fair to assume that some of the early
witnesses, at least, were no friends of the Mormons and were willing
to see Mormonism assaulted. My own ancestral relative, Andrews Tyler,
appears to have been the first Mormon to have left the Church over
the Spalding authorship claims -- and I'm fairly sure that his decision
to do so was partly influenced by the assertions of his near neighbor,
Henry Lake (a Conneaut witness). Andrews was a restorationist and
accepted the idea of a latter day apostolic church -- but he came to
see the Book of Mormon as a fraud. The final straw for him was very
likely the overnight visit in his Erie Co. residence of Joseph Smith and
Sidney Rigdon, who in the fall of 1833 were passing through the
area, a day or two behind D.P. Hurlbut -- and taking the trouble to
speak with the local saints who had known Hurlbut. Father Tyler did
not like "the cut of their jib" according to family tradition.

So, I do not think we can hold the "Conneaut witnesses" as being
totally objective or neutral. On the silhouette-map I posted, a
couple of the people actually joined the Mormons, or were from
families that included early Mormon converts. In their cases we
have the unusual phenomenon of witnesses who did not accuse
Spalding of having written the Book of Mormon -- but they may
well have been biased in the reciprocal direction.

I think it would still be possible to locate a few more "Conneaut"
witnesses. E.D. Howe mentioned that he did not publish all the
statements collected in 1833 -- and I have a suspicion that a
few more affidavits might be contained in the uncatalogued
L.L.Rice papers, donated to the State of Hawaii Archives upon the
death of his daughter in Honolulu.

I was also able to uncover some pre-1833 material on the Conneaut
people, including an early docket book which mentions most of their
names, and a few newspaper items printed before the death of
Nehemiah King in 1833. But none of that is particularly useful.

Liars? -- no.
Partisans? -- perhaps.
Objective deponents, telling all they knew? -- probably not.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

I find it rather ironic that you seem to insist on a perfect fit, while Roger draws on personal experience with memory to support the Conneaut witnesses that is very different.

Wrong on both counts. Marg is not insisting on a perfect fit. You (as in you, Glenn, Brodie and other S/R critics) are the ones attempting to force Loftus into something that fits the application you want it to. Marg is simply pointing out the fallacy in that by showing the differences.

My personal experience, on the other hand, was not cited as a case study for false memories, but rather anecdotal evidence that an average human being is more than capable of accurately remembering the names of the lead characters from a book he or she was exposed to more than 20 years in the past--and if that person was indeed repeatedly exposed to those names, then he or she is likely to be adamant about those particular memories while at the same time forgetting some of the additional elements to the story--but will likely retain a general outline. It also shows that on the less remembered names (secondary characters), something phonetically similar CAN make a reasonable substitute for the actual name, as in my remembrance of "Brian" in place of the actual "Byron" or "Rhonda" in place of the actual "Rhoda." This harmonizes quite well with the points marg is making from the Loftus study.

Loftus showed that false memories can be planted through suggestion.

But NOT ridiculous suggestions and not with a 100% success ratio and only in cases where the particants were generally not clear to begin with, which does not apply to the assertions about Nephi and Lehi or "and it came to pass."

It doesn’t have to be exactly replicated for the principle to apply.

Sure, but misapplication doesn't work.

There’s a reason witnesses are interviewed separately, or be in the courtroom while another is testifying. It’s not because of the fear of collusion, but the fear of contamination of memory.

Fear of collusion is most certainly a reason for interviewing witnesses separately.

Memory is malleable, especially with the passage of time. Loftus was one study about memory. But other studies on memory show that while people retain general meaning of their experiences, they are often wrong about particulars (e.g., R. C. Barclay).

And these witnesses are no different, nor does their testimony contradict that. They are adamant about what they should remember: the names of the lead characters and repeated exposure to "and it came to pass." These are the things they claim to "well remember." And some of them mentioned interesting elements of the story that stuck out to them, but beyond that, they admit to having fuzzy memories after 20+ years.

[_Roger]

The first is, quite simply, that the descriptions we get are all way too similar.

That's because they were talking about the same book.

Exactly. This is why I said I agree with Ben's logic--at least up to a certain point.

I am even willing to grant that Hurlbut probably did take the statements of John and Martha and then showed them to the others to see if they remembered the same things. I think we all agree that Hurlbut could have handled this better. But Hurlbut's bungling does not mean there never was a Manuscript Found and Hurlbut's bungling does not mean the agreed upon elements as expressed in highly similar vocabularies, proves there was never a Manuscript Found. If Manuscript Found was actually what they were exposed to (like they claim), then we would expect the statements to appear pretty much like what we now have, vocabulary overlap and all, given Hurlbut's method.

It's a nice try by Ben, but it simply doesn't demonstrate what he wants it to.